| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 21:13 on Monday 13 September 2010, J. |
| 2 |
Roeleveld did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 6 |
> > >> [...] |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on |
| 9 |
> > > unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I |
| 10 |
> > > really need that version. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or |
| 13 |
> > full testing (aka "unstable"). Mixing usually makes things worse. I |
| 14 |
> > used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that |
| 15 |
> > this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch |
| 16 |
> > packages breaking with arch ones. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to |
| 19 |
> unmask these. |
| 20 |
> I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is: |
| 23 |
> =games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64 |
| 24 |
> =games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64 |
| 25 |
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64 |
| 26 |
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64 |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I |
| 29 |
> wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that |
| 30 |
> one has become stable since. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
File a stabilization request at bugs.gentoo.org |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If it's sufficiently tested, and there are no outstanding big bugs on the |
| 37 |
package, and if the arch maintainers agree, the devs will move the package to |
| 38 |
stable. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives